Indiana Gov. Signs "Religious Freedom Law"

flanker · Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:02 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=268&v=RgWIhYAtan4

HIDDEN CAM: Gay Wedding Cakes at Muslim Bakeries?

brilliant.

[Edited 2015-04-02 22:03:37]

flyguy89 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:50 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 298):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 295):
If they choose to go into Wal-Mart and remove their hijabs, that's their choice.

But Wal-Mart telling women they can not wear them in the store is infringing on their right to practice religion.

Unless the government suddenly starts making going there compulsory, or Wal-Mart starts pointing guns to peoples' heads forcing them to shop in their stores, then no.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 298):
Like a Catholic nun being told she can not wear her habit in Wal-Mart.

No different in this example either.

EA CO AS · Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:27 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 298):
I have the right to shop at Wal-Mart. It is a public company with no membership fees or requirements.

And yet Wal-Mart, like other retailers, routinely bans people from their property all the time for things like shoplifting, passing bad checks, etc. And no one complains about the "rights of the criminal" being violated by such bans.

Hmmm.....

jpetekyxmd80 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:06 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 302):
And yet Wal-Mart, like other retailers, routinely bans people from their property all the time for things like shoplifting, passing bad checks, etc. And no one complains about the "rights of the criminal" being violated by such bans.

Hmmm.....

Is this supposed to be a serious argument about something?

BestWestern · Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:07 am

So, the anti-gay elephant in the room turns out to be true when the law was changed to ensure the rights of LGBT..

Eric Miller, founder and executive director of the conservative advocacy group Advance America, stood with Pence as he signed RFRA last week during a private ceremony.

"The proposed change to Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not a 'fix' but a hammer to destroy religious freedom for Hoosiers around the state -– and it was all done behind closed doors!" said Miller Thursday.

"This new proposal guts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and empowers the government to impose punishing fines on people for following their beliefs about marriage," added Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

einsteinboricua · Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:03 pm

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 302):
And yet Wal-Mart, like other retailers, routinely bans people from their property all the time for things like shoplifting, passing bad checks, etc.

Is this supposed to be an argument or something? You break the rules/code of conduct, you get banned. Just like this forum. If I paid my dues I have the right to post in it but have the duty to follow the rules set forth. If I don't agree with them I can go to another forum; if I violate the rules and merit banning, I'm banned and that's it. And just like this forum prohibits banned members from signing up again under a different name, Wal-Mart bans shoplifters from returning to a store.

You know what makes it different? The fact that there's no criteria to enter. I didn't have to pay $25 for my membership and then be told I'm banned because of some surprise criteria that I wasn't told about. I didn't break any rules to merit that ban and there was nothing posted at the time of sign up.

As I've said time and time again, unless it's obvious (go to a church to expect a SSM to be performed), post who your clientele is.

luckyone · Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:17 pm

Now Ted Cruz is attacking coorporations. This is becoming comical.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...tives-reaction-116611.html?hp=r3_4

BestWestern · Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:29 pm

Quoting luckyone (Reply 306):
This is becoming comical.

Its becoming serious. The republicans could rip themselves apart...

Washington Times columnist Steve Deace said in an interview on Wednesday that he hopes the Arkansas General Assembly refuses to heed Hutchinson’s call to modify the bill.

“I would make the governor veto what amounts to the First Amendment before I changed a single word,” Deace said. “I have no mercy or patience left for gutless Republicans.”

Oh dear....

tommy1808 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:06 pm

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 307):
Oh dear....

well. . If things get unbearable for the LGBT community. .. many countries will gladly grand political asylum.

THAT would make for some interesting news specials on Fox News. ...

Best regards
Thomas

scamp · Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:42 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 298):
The sooner the evangelicals in control of the Republican party understand the separation of church and state and that their religion is not under attack, the sooner we can move this country forward.

This is unlikely to ever happen. Republicans care about two things, money and sticking their noses in other people's business. As long as that mindset exists, they will never move forward. Considering how most of them long for the perceived "good old days" of the 1800s-1950s, they have no desire to move forward.

mt99 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 4:31 pm

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 307):

Its becoming serious. The republicans could rip themselves apart...

Gov Pence could end up being the best thing that ever happened to the gay movement. WalMart, NASCAR, NFL, NBA all have come openly to the side of gays,

flyingturtle · Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:50 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 291):
Could the state simply conclude that banning nudity on the Capitol lawn is a compelling state interest?

Of course. The ghastly sight of nude bodies will corrupt any mind. The guv'mint has a duty to protect people from harm. The Capitol inmates probably think doctors like you wear special goggles during medical exams.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 294):
Then open your home to whomever asks. But you don't get to force your views on others.

You're a master at mis-reading my lines. The matter at hand is not "open my home to somebody else", but the matter was "I don't pay my rent because according to my religion, everybody has a right to a home anyway."

The RFRA makes a firmly held religious conviction trump over property rights.

David

tommy1808 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:02 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 311):
Of course. The ghastly sight of nude bodies will corrupt any mind.

in that case they can just dance naked waving some AR-15 around.... with pro-gun slogans painted on their chest.
An impossible to resolve conflict of fundamentalism and some GOP members may just self destruct where they stand

.
Republican debris everywhere. ....

Best regards
Thomas

EA CO AS · Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:13 pm

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 303):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 302):And yet Wal-Mart, like other retailers, routinely bans people from their property all the time for things like shoplifting, passing bad checks, etc. And no one complains about the "rights of the criminal" being violated by such bans.Hmmm..... Is this supposed to be a serious argument about something?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 305):
Is this supposed to be an argument or something? You break the rules/code of conduct, you get banned.

So in other words, doing business with a retailer isn't actually a "right" - it's a privilege that the retailer can revoke at their discretion.

Correct?

tommy1808 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:20 pm

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 313):
So in other words, doing business with a retailer isn't actually a "right" - it's a privilege that the retailer can revoke at their discretion.

Correct?

isn't conduct something you do as opposed to something you are?

Best regards
Thomas

lewis · Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:22 pm

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 313):
So in other words, doing business with a retailer isn't actually a "right" - it's a privilege that the retailer can revoke at their discretion.

Correct?

Freedom is a right but it can also be revoked if you commit a crime, aka break the rules. That does not make freedom a "privilege". Do you honestly believe that rights can never be revoked?

flyguy89 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:01 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 314):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 313):
So in other words, doing business with a retailer isn't actually a "right" - it's a privilege that the retailer can revoke at their discretion.

Correct?

isn't conduct something you do as opposed to something you are?

If a store requires you to wear a shirt and shoes in their stores, are they not discriminating against someone who may be poor (something you are) and unable to afford either of those?

tommy1808 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:33 pm

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 316):
If a store requires you to wear a shirt and shoes in their stores, are they not discriminating against someone who may be poor (something you are) and unable to afford either of those?

if it is a requirement by law, no. If it isn't. .. yes. If someone wants to shop naked... let him/her.
Restaurants with a tie requirement have usually a tie for you, I don't see why a store can't have some shirts for the same purpose.

Best regards
Thomas

EA CO AS · Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 314):
isn't conduct something you do as opposed to something you are

Absolutely. I'm simply establishing that there are, in fact, limits, and that doing business with any entity is not a "right" enshrined anywhere. There are times where it's appropriate for a retailer or any other business to refuse to do business with someone.

Quoting lewis (Reply 315):
Do you honestly believe that rights can never be revoked

No, but shopping at a particular store isn't a "right."

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 317):
If someone wants to shop naked... let him/her.

What if that one customer's behavior so offends your thousands of other customers that they stop doing business with you? Should you be forced to permit someone to shop naked to the point where you are driven out of business?

I'm a firm supporter of equal rights for all and same-sex marriage, so this isn't a "gay thing" to me as it is to others; I just think everyone is only seeing this issue through LGBT-colored glasses without thinking about how the government restricting a business from the right to choose to do - or not do - business with whomever they want is detrimental to everyone's freedom.

And on a side note; why would anyone actually WANT to do business with a company that didn't want to cater to their needs? In the famous case of the bakery, would you really eat a piece of cake made by an angry baker who was forced to make it for you by law?

[Edited 2015-04-03 15:02:28]

tommy1808 · Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:05 pm

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 318):
What if that one customer's behavior so offends your thousands of other customers that they stop doing business with you? Should you be forced to permit someone to shop naked to the point where you are driven out of business?

where do you suppose they will shop if stores can't legally ban naked customers? The US are so cute suburban when it comes to nudity. No Indecent exposure laws here, yet we don't have people trying to shop naked here.
What if your customers are offended by ugly people? Ban them too?

Best regards
Thomas

EA CO AS · Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:28 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 319):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 318):What if that one customer's behavior so offends your thousands of other customers that they stop doing business with you? Should you be forced to permit someone to shop naked to the point where you are driven out of business?
where do you suppose they will shop if stores can't legally ban naked customers?

Cute. Elsewhere, and that's the point - the free marketplace and free society should jointly decide who wins and loses in cases like this.

If a bakery refuses to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, fine - that's their prerogative. But that bakery needs to own their decision and also be ok with knowing their refusal may (and frankly, should!) also cost them the business of others based on the stance they've chosen.

The bakery shouldn't however be sued out of existence, forced by law to comply, or have hatemongers threaten to firebomb their place! Put bluntly, they've got the right to be wrong if they want. And consumers have the right to not do business with them as a result.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 312):
they can just dance naked waving some AR-15 around....

Dancing naked aside, some U.S. businesses have enacted policies that bar people from legally carrying firearms into their stores, which IS a right under the Second Amendment. So why is that ok, but telling someone you'd rather not make a swastika-shaped cake for them not ok?

BMI727 · Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:36 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 298):
Those are two separate statements that have nothing at all in any way to do with each other.

They do when you talk about people shopping at Walmart while wearing a hijab.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 298):
I have the right to shop at Wal-Mart.

You have no such right. And neither do people who want to walk around Walmart with a rifle. The company policy can require that they leave private property.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 311):
The RFRA makes a firmly held religious conviction trump over property rights.

Actually it doesn't. If anything it does the opposite. One can't dictate that someone else's business not serve a given group, only the owner gets to make that decision.

einsteinboricua · Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:09 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 316):
are they not discriminating against someone who may be poor (something you are) and unable to afford either of those?

If they're poor and unable to afford any of those they wouldn't be there in the first place, would they? That's like me demanding access to a country club and claiming they're discriminating against me because I'm not rich enough. Why would I go there in the first place if I know I don't meet the criteria?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 321):
And neither do people who want to walk around Walmart with a rifle.

It's actually a sad thought to think that arms have more privilege than humans. Arms have an amendment protecting them.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 321):
The company policy can require that they leave private property.

But why? Because their code requires them to comply with it or shop elsewhere. If they are complying, the store has no reason to deny service.

How would you feel if after you paid the $25 to post here, a.net said "thanks, but we won't allow you to post here at all". You have no right to post in the forum.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 321):
only the owner gets to make that decision.

...and if the owner claims religious belief as an excuse then religious conviction trumps property rights.

BMI727 · Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:17 am

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 322):
It's actually a sad thought to think that arms have more privilege than humans. Arms have an amendment protecting them.

And now you understand why the Bill of Rights is a disaster that never should have existed.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 322):
How would you feel if after you paid the $25 to post here, a.net said "thanks, but we won't allow you to post here at all". You have no right to post in the forum

When I paid the $25 I signed a contract which both sides must abide by. There's nothing wrong with the site simply choosing to not make a similar contract with other people.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 322):
...and if the owner claims religious belief as an excuse then religious conviction trumps property rights.

Not at all. The only person who can exercise property rights is the owner of said property. If they choose to exercise those rights in accordance with their religious beliefs, they can do so.

einsteinboricua · Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:34 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 323):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 322):
It's actually a sad thought to think that arms have more privilege than humans. Arms have an amendment protecting them.

And now you understand why the Bill of Rights is a disaster that never should have existed.

I don't see any harm in the Bill of Rights. What I do have a problem with is the short sightedness of politicians to think that those are the only rights and no more. It took an amendment to guarantee women the right to vote and another to grant blacks the right to vote. There should be one that strikes down those two amendments and guarantees everyone the right to pursuit of happiness, ability to vote, equal rights, regardless of (but not limited to) race, sex, sexual orientation/identity, religion, etc.

LFutia · Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:11 am

In other news ...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...a-gay-weddings-20150402-story.html

How sad really..

Leo/ORD

EA CO AS · Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:33 am

Quoting LFutia (Reply 325):
How sad really..

I agree.

It's sad that this all started with a reporter who decided to create news instead of reporting it.

It's sad that it's being reported that they "wouldn't serve gay customers" when in actuality they said they'd have no problem serving same-sex couples; they just didn't want to cater a gay wedding - and that they've never been asked to cater ANY wedding for that matter.

It's sad that as a result of this slanted reporting, the "tolerant" left has come out with threats to firebomb the business.

It's sad that the owners have had to close down out of fear for their safety.

It's sad that people are angry that others have donated.

It's sad that people are only seeing this issue through LGBT-colored glasses and not seeing other potential issues.

And it's saddest of all that no one sees how liberty is dying in the name of "tolerance."

LFutia · Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:38 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 326):
It's sad that it's being reported that they "wouldn't serve gay customers" when in actuality they said they'd have no problem serving same-sex couples; they just didn't want to cater a gay wedding - and that they've never been asked to cater ANY wedding for that matter.

as a gay person I think its wrong. Why not make money and cater instead of turn away or deny. quite sad that we have to deal with something like this. I dont see why you dont have a problem serving to same sex couples but yet have a problem with a wedding.

I live in Illinois. We havent heard of discrimination like this in our state.

Leo/ORD

EA CO AS · Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:53 am

Quoting LFutia (Reply 327):
I dont see why you dont have a problem serving to same sex couples but yet have a problem with a wedding.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with any of that; if it were my restaurant, I'd serve anyone and cater anyone's wedding. Gay weddings would be a blast to attend!

I just don't think it's right for a restaurant to be run out of business based on their decision to NOT cater a wedding, though.

While it's not entirely the same, here's my story; when my wife and I were looking for an officiant for our wedding, we approached the priests at the Catholic church we attend. We wanted an outdoor wedding and asked if that were possible.

No can do, they said. Catholic priests work inside a church only, not outdoors.

Did we sue? Did we take our grievances to the media? Did we go online and threaten to picket the church until they gave in?

No, we just found another officiant who did a fine job and catered to our desire to have our wedding outdoors.

So why can't other people just roll with it and make another choice if someone doesn't want to serve them the way they want?

Mir · Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:17 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 320):
the free marketplace and free society should jointly decide who wins and loses in cases like this.

But that's not what these people want. They want to not only be able to have their beliefs, but also to be protected from anybody calling them out on it. They go on the news complaining about how they've gotten bad press and how people have left negative reviews - well that's what happens when broader society finds out that your views are bigoted, and if you want to advertise that you've got bigoted beliefs, you're probably going to get some backlash. I don't in any way condone violence or the threat of it - I know that's happened, and it's wrong. But leaving a "I'd prefer my pizza without a slice of bigotry" one-star review on Yelp is completely legitimate, and they need to stop whining about other people expressing their opinion about them.

Religious conservatives are actively trying to legally ban gay people from doing something, and see nothing wrong with it. But when they get asked to serve a gay person they scream bloody murder, even though nobody is seeking to ban them from doing anything. And then when people criticize them they scream some more. The hypocrisy is just ridiculous.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 326):
It's sad that it's being reported that they "wouldn't serve gay customers" when in actuality they said they'd have no problem serving same-sex couples; they just didn't want to cater a gay wedding - and that they've never been asked to cater ANY wedding for that matter.

The strangeness of having a pizza place cater a wedding aside, ultimately they're treating gay customers differently from straight customers by adopting such a policy. That they'd serve a gay customer who just wanted to come in for a slice doesn't really mean all that much to me - they've shown their colors when it comes to their attitude about the gay community.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 328):
I just don't think it's right for a restaurant to be run out of business based on their decision to NOT cater a wedding, though.

You can't say that and also claim that people have the right to not patronize them. Obviously, if enough people feel strongly enough about them not wanting to cater to gays to not eat there, they're going to go out of business. And there's nothing wrong with that.

-Mir

BestWestern · Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:27 am

Quoting mt99 (Reply 310):
Gov Pence could end up being the best thing that ever happened to the gay movement.

And probably will be burnt alive by his own...

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 328):
Catholic priests work inside a church only, not outdoors.

Did we sue? Did we take our grievances to the media?

Did you sue.....

If you ask a dentist to polish your teeth outside, what would he say?

Obviously, you were not interested in the catholic part of the wedding, just the outdoor, so the priest was probably right,

LFutia · Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:49 am

Quoting mt99 (Reply 310):
Gov Pence could end up being the best thing that ever happened to the gay movement. WalMart, NASCAR, NFL, NBA all have come openly to the side of gays,

Its also helping other states too. Illinois is touting how we're open for business. Definitely trying to win some business back after they run ads in our state touting how their taxes are lower and how its just better overall in Indiana.

Leo/ORD

seb146 · Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:57 am

Quoting LFutia (Reply 325):
How sad really..

What is sad is the media gloms on to one tiny part of this story. Sure, they refuse to cater a gay wedding. That is a fact. And, I also did hear her say that she would serve anyone who walks through the door and orders. But, the media from all sides, get everyone ginned up. Plus, people express their opinion with their dollars by saying "well, if they don't cater for all and, instead, force their views on everyone, we will just take our money elsewhere."

It is not in their best interest to deny service to anyone. Catering included. This pizza place came out and said they want to force their views on others by saying they would deny catering to a gay wedding.

But, if one thinks about it, why would we have pizza at our weddings?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 323):
now you understand why the Bill of Rights is a disaster that never should have existed.

And you tell me and anyone left of you that we are unpatriotic and hate America but how much you love the Founding Fathers. The hypocrisy is just overwhelming. Since you hate this country and it's laws so much, leave.

Aesma · Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:22 am

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 146):
All these businesses that have announced they intend to boycott Indiana might be a little careful.I've been reading on some other sites that may have someone launch a reverse discrimination lawsuit against the business boycotters on the grounds of economic hardship to the state and people of Indiana.

It's doesn't matter of it's on your opinion of moral or constitution, wrong or right.Boycotts could be grounds for a lawsuit.

Has such a lawsuit ever been won ?

EA CO AS · Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:29 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 329):
But that's not what these people want. They want to not only be able to have their beliefs, but also to be protected from anybody calling them out on it.

Hold on a moment, while I'm not an overly-religious person, think about this from a religious person's point of view; to them, marriage isn't a legal entity, but a religious one. And rightly or wrongly, if they're being asked to cater for a gay wedding and they happen to believe that conflicts with their religious perspective, they should be allowed to politely decline. I personally disagree with their views but I can understand why they'd want to not participate.

Quoting Mir (Reply 329):
leaving a "I'd prefer my pizza without a slice of bigotry" one-star review on Yelp is completely legitimate,

Absolutely. I have no problem with this whatsoever.

Quoting Mir (Reply 329):
Religious conservatives are actively trying to legally ban gay people from doing something, and see nothing wrong with it. But when they get asked to serve a gay person they scream bloody murder, even though nobody is seeking to ban them from doing anything.

It's not about "serving" a gay person; you can put that tired old "You don't get to decide who gets to sit at the lunch counter" argument away, as this has nothing to do with serving someone lunch, dinner, whatever. No one is standing at the door with a billy club looking to gay-bash. As I said earlier, those religious conservatives - according to their religious views - believe marriage is this "sacred, blessed, religious" rite and simply don't want to be a part of celebrating it. Go in and ask for a gay cake that says, "HAPPY BIRTHDAY" or in this case, that the pizzas are to celebrate someone coming out, and I doubt they'd bat an eyelash. It's the concept that to them, this is a sacred religious rite being somehow diminished by same-sex couples that's at play here.

Again, not saying I agree - I do NOT. I just say I understand where they're coming from.

Quoting Mir (Reply 329):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 328):I just don't think it's right for a restaurant to be run out of business based on their decision to NOT cater a wedding, though.
You can't say that and also claim that people have the right to not patronize them. Obviously, if enough people feel strongly enough about them not wanting to cater to gays to not eat there, they're going to go out of business. And there's nothing wrong with that.

There's a HUGE difference between a business naturally going under because they've earned a poor reputation for treating prospective customers poorly and an artificially-created media circus actively trying to hasten their demise.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 330):
If you ask a dentist to polish your teeth outside, what would he say?

C'mon, you're better than that. Come back when you have a real question.

flyguy89 · Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:50 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 317):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 316):
If a store requires you to wear a shirt and shoes in their stores, are they not discriminating against someone who may be poor (something you are) and unable to afford either of those?

if it is a requirement by law, no.

So just because it's law means it's not wrong or discriminatory?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 322):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 316):
are they not discriminating against someone who may be poor (something you are) and unable to afford either of those?

If they're poor and unable to afford any of those they wouldn't be there in the first place, would they?

That's a dim argument. If they're poor, why wouldn't they be shopping at the cheapest place in town?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 322):
That's like me demanding access to a country club and claiming they're discriminating against me because I'm not rich enough. Why would I go there in the first place if I know I don't meet the criteria?

Circling back to your previous statement, this is a dim argument, you're obfuscating. Just because it's unlikely to happen doesn't mean it's philosophically not the same thing. You're basically saying, "Well that's rare and unlikely, so I'm OK that discrimination."

Quoting Mir (Reply 329):
They go on the news complaining about how they've gotten bad press and how people have left negative reviews - well that's what happens when broader society finds out that your views are bigoted, and if you want to advertise that you've got bigoted beliefs, you're probably going to get some backlash.

I think it's more about the hypocrisy here. There's absolutely nothing wrong with customers leaving one-star reviews on Yelp and taking their business elsewhere, that's absolutely the free market at work and the owners of the pizzeria are paying an inherent "discrimination tax" for their policies...completely independent of government I'm glad to point out. What's hypocritical is the intolerance and harassment being wrought by the one side of the political spectrum that purports to bear the mantle of tolerance and "liberalism".

Quoting seb146 (Reply 332):
Quoting LFutia (Reply 325):
How sad really..

What is sad is the media gloms on to one tiny part of this story. Sure, they refuse to cater a gay wedding. That is a fact. And, I also did hear her say that she would serve anyone who walks through the door and orders. But, the media from all sides, get everyone ginned up.

Shut the front door, did we just agree on something, Seb?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 332):
This pizza place came out and said they want to force their views on others by saying they would deny catering to a gay wedding.

They're not forcing you to believe anything. They're not forcing you not to get married to your same-sex partner. If they want to turn away dollars and not use their labor and private property for something they don't want to do...for any reason for any activity, they should be free to do so. Again I'll point out that you should still sleep well at night knowing that they're views and discriminatory business practices will be costing them in the dollars they'll lose to a competitor, again, an inherent "discrimination tax".

[Edited 2015-04-03 22:52:45]

Aesma · Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:51 am

I'm sorry but the law's scope isn't gay weddings. It's much broader.

EA CO AS · Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:19 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 335):
What's hypocritical is the intolerance and harassment being wrought by the one side of the political spectrum that purports to bear the mantle of tolerance and "liberalism".

This. Well-said.

Maverick623 · Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:19 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 334):
Hold on a moment, while I'm not an overly-religious person, think about this from a religious person's point of view; to them, marriage isn't a legal entity, but a religious one.

They could also believe that people with darker skin tones aren't people, but they would also be dead wrong.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 334):
And rightly or wrongly, if they're being asked to cater for a gay wedding and they happen to believe that conflicts with their religious perspective, they should be allowed to politely decline

Should they be allowed to politely decline a black couple if it conflicts with their religious perspective?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 334):
I can understand why they'd want to not participate.

That's like saying you can understand why someone might be a white supremacist. Doesn't make them right about anything or extend them any special rights.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 334):
It's not about "serving" a gay person; you can put that tired old "You don't get to decide who gets to sit at the lunch counter" argument away, as this has nothing to do with serving someone lunch, dinner, whatever.

Actually, it does. A business open to the public is a business open to the public. Whether they serve sandwiches at a lunch counter, or a cake at a bakery, or a shoe in a shoe store; they cannot refuse service to someone based on anything other than disturbing, violent, or otherwise illegal behavior or their ability to pay.

seb146 · Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:41 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 335):
Shut the front door, did we just agree on something, Seb?

So close and still so very far away:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 335):
They're not forcing you to believe anything. They're not forcing you not to get married to your same-sex partner. If they want to turn away dollars and not use their labor and private property for something they don't want to do...for any reason for any activity, they should be free to do so.

To a point. I think the Mormon church is a bunch of hooey. I don't think much of the Catholic church, either. But, because of separation of church and state we enjoy in this country (and profit is better than being in debt) I do not go on record much as saying things like the pizza place did.

In fact, the restaurant I work for simply asks for a credit card and a legitimate call back number for catered orders. Why? Separation of church and state. Maybe because I live in the "evil liberal" state of California, but we care more about making money than pushing our own beliefs on others.

The owner of my franchise is Muslim. Yet, the stores sell bacon. Why? Because America. Freedom. His freedom, my freedom, customer's freedom.

Aesma · Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:49 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 335):
They're not forcing you to believe anything. They're not forcing you not to get married to your same-sex partner.

Actually they are. Or do you believe they support politicians for gay marriage ? If they run their business with their religion in mind, I doubt they vote without it.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 335):
What's hypocritical is the intolerance and harassment being wrought by the one side of the political spectrum that purports to bear the mantle of tolerance and "liberalism".

I disagree with harassment and tweets about burning down the place. Those things are in fact illegal and their authors are being punished. They're not a majority. Getting laws passed means you do have a majority for them, on the other hand.

tommy1808 · Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:16 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 328):
So why can't other people just roll with it and make another choice if someone doesn't want to serve them the way they want?

because the nice folks that set abortion clinics on fire will exert pressure on those business to make sure they don't want to. It may just be few places at first, but that doesn't have to stay that way. It has to be clear that discrimination as part of a business model will put you out of business, either because no one shows up to shop, or because the authorities fine you till your broke.
Kids had to go to school under national guard protection once, in the long run it may be a not the worst idea to buy cake the same way for a while.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 335):
So just because it's law means it's not wrong or discriminatory?

not by the store owner.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 335):
They're not forcing you not to get married to your same-sex partner.

you are assuming that there will always be one store to sell you cake, to hold the ceremony, that rents you a place to celebrate and so on. That is naive. If your wedding has to be 100 miles from home, because the next door location doesn't cater to gay weddings, you are discriminated against. If you can't buy from the store that makes the best cakes in the whole state, with the awards to proof it, you are discriminated against.

There was no discrimination of blacks... just equal, but seperate, right? What did that lady make a fuzz about, she could ride in the back of the bus after all.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 320):
the free marketplace and free society should jointly decide who wins and loses in cases like this.

and we do that by way of elections.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 320):
Dancing naked aside, some U.S. businesses have enacted policies that bar people from legally carrying firearms into their stores, which IS a right under the Second Amendment. So why is that ok, but telling someone you'd rather not make a swastika-shaped cake for them not ok?

I can think of only two reasons:

1. The urban legend of judges having common sense has actually some basis in fact
2. those regulations somehow don't violate the 2nd amendment

Ok, no. one may be a little far fetched.

Best regards
Thomas

Cerecl · Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:56 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 328):
No can do, they said. Catholic priests work inside a church only, not outdoors.

The priest did not refuse to officiate your wedding, they refused to perform it to your specification based on their belief. If you go to an Mexican restaurant and ask for Sweet and Sour pork, the owner has every right to refuse to provide such dish. However, if you go to the said restaurant and the owner refused to serve you because you are Chinese or practice homosexuality, for example, then it is not OK. In addition, you are requesting a service with some religious component from a clergyman, I think they are within right to stand firm on their belief. This is different from most other services in life, such as selling groceries, providing food, etc.

What I don't understand is how in USA, a country who pride itself of being THE country of freedom, there are so many people who kept on electing idiots who seem hell bent on curtailing other people's freedom and rights based on nothing but being different to them. What on earth happened to the idea of live and let live?

EA CO AS · Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:22 am

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 338):
They could also believe that people with darker skin tones aren't people, but they would also be dead wrong.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 338):
Should they be allowed to politely decline a black couple if it conflicts with their religious perspective?

To both the above points, can you tell me of any religion whose adherents firmly believe that skin color conflicts with their religious convictions?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 338):
Whether they serve sandwiches at a lunch counter, or a cake at a bakery, or a shoe in a shoe store; they cannot refuse service to someone based on anything other than disturbing, violent, or otherwise illegal behavior or their ability to pay.

So who gets to decide what constitutes "disturbing behavior" exactly? Again, not saying I agree, but to someone who is a deeply religious person, could you see where they may view a same-sex marriage as "disturbing" to them and being unwilling to participate in its celebration?

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 341):
Kids had to go to school under national guard protection once, in the long run it may be a not the worst idea to buy cake the same way for a while.

I totally understand your point and even agree to an extent, however even those closed-minded folks who didn't want to attend the same school as those who were brought in under the national guard's protection had the option to choose to not be in the same school or associate with them if they chose. Freedom of association - or non-association - wasn't revoked.

Quoting cerecl (Reply 342):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 328):No can do, they said. Catholic priests work inside a church only, not outdoors.

The priest did not refuse to officiate your wedding, they refused to perform it to your specification based on their belief.

Using the bakery scenario, couldn't you also say that the refusal to bake a wedding cake instead of a birthday cake or coming-out cake was merely a refusal to perform to their specification based on their belief, and therefore, ok?

tommy1808 · Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:58 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 343):
I totally understand your point and even agree to an extent, however even those closed-minded folks who didn't want to attend the same school as those who were brought in under the national guard's protection had the option to choose to not be in the same school or associate with them if they chose. Freedom of association - or non-association - wasn't revoked.

you mean to say there where still all white schools around for them to chose from? Or that the could chose to forgo school all together and be homeschooled?
In that sense you are still free not to operate a business if you dislike the rules you have to operate it under. Freedom of association is not revoked.

Best regards
Thomas

EA CO AS · Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:20 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 344):
Freedom of association is not revoked.

We'll agree to disagree, then.

tommy1808 · Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:24 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 345):
We'll agree to disagree, then.

I am willing to read your reasoning to why that is different. Please do tell...

Best regards
Thomas

BMI727 · Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:24 am

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 324):
I don't see any harm in the Bill of Rights. What I do have a problem with is the short sightedness of politicians to think that those are the only rights and no more.

You say you don't see the harm in the Bill of Rights, and then in the very next sentence point out some of the harm in the Bill of Rights.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 332):
And you tell me and anyone left of you that we are unpatriotic and hate America but how much you love the Founding Fathers.

I'm the one who's been accused of hating America. And, if you were to take an uncharacteristic interest in facts, you'd note that some of the founding fathers objected to the Bill of Rights and have been proven right for the last two centuries or so.

EA CO AS · Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:08 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 346):
I am willing to read your reasoning to why that is different. Please do tell...

Circling back to the bakery / cake for gay wedding scenario, the "choice" faced by the bakers is:

do business under conditions that are contrary to their religious beliefs

or

be forced to shut down and/or face coercive fines until the former is done.

The bakery owners do, at that point, have unlawful restrictions placed on their freedom of association.

Quoting a recent article affirming my point:

Private individuals on private property should be free to associate with whom and without whom they wish. Just because someone runs a business or is part of a private group or organization does not mean that she surrenders her rights or becomes a mere appendage of government.

tommy1808 · Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:22 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 347):
And, if you were to take an uncharacteristic interest in facts, you'd note that some of the founding fathers objected to the Bill of Rights

every time had its idiots and naives. Founding fathers where not immune to that. Didn't they also consider that the vice president was supposed to be the losing candidate of the presidential election or something like that? Now that would have worked splendid in reality....

Best regards
Thomas

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net